# C_2019072EN.01003301.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/33

---

Action brought on 13 December 2018 — Sumitomo Chemical and Tenka Best v Commission

(Case T-734/18)

(2019/C 72/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc (London, United Kingdom) and Tenka Best, SL (Aiguafreda, Spain) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, lawyer and V. McElwee, solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1251 of 18 September 2018 not approving empenthrin as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 18; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1251 of 18 September 2018 not approving empenthrin as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 18; (1)

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to follow procedural steps that were required of it prior to adopting the contested act. Had such steps been followed, the act adopted might have been different. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to follow procedural steps that were required of it prior to adopting the contested act. Had such steps been followed, the act adopted might have been different.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in the following areas: in not taking into account the procedural irregularities in the review of empenthrin; in permitting a hypothetical risk to give rise to the non-approval of empenthrin; in failing to take into account animal welfare requirements stemming from the Biocidal Products Regulation. (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in the following areas: in not taking into account the procedural irregularities in the review of empenthrin; in permitting a hypothetical risk to give rise to the non-approval of empenthrin; in failing to take into account animal welfare requirements stemming from the Biocidal Products Regulation. (2)

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to ensure the first applicant’s rights of defence






  — | It is argued that the first applicant’s comments and data have not been reviewed and its rights of defence necessarily infringed. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to ensure the first applicant’s rights of defence

—

It is argued that the first applicant’s comments and data have not been reviewed and its rights of defence necessarily infringed.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed the principle of sound administration.






  — | It is argued that the first applicant was not given the time to develop future data and that its data waivers were unfairly rejected. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed the principle of sound administration.

—

It is argued that the first applicant was not given the time to develop future data and that its data waivers were unfairly rejected.

---

(1)  OJ 2018 L 235, p. 24.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).

---